NSF Merit Review Process and Proposal Preparation

1
NSF Merit Review Process and Proposal Preparation
Proposal Preparation September, 2009 Division
of Undergraduate Education Directorate for
Education and Human Resources
2
Outline

• Review of the context
• Mechanics of proposal process
• Proposal review
• Proposal preparation and advice
• QA

3
Office of Cyberinfrastructure
NSF Organizational Chart
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Programs
Director Deputy Director
National Science Board (NSB)
Office of the General Counsel
Office of Integrative Activities
Office of International Science Engineering
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
Office of Legislative Public Affairs
Office of Polar Programs
Mathematical Physical Sciences (MPS)
Geosciences (GEO)
Engineering (ENG)
Computer Information Science
Engineering (CISE)
Biological Sciences (BIO)
Social, Behavioral Economic Sciences (SBE)
Education Human Resources (EHR)
Budget, Finance Award Management (BFA)
Information Resource Management (IRM)
4
NSF Structure and Programs

• Cross-cutting programs
• Draw from across the Foundation
• Reviewed in the Discipline
• Disciplines
• Directorate or Office
• Divisions
• Programs

5
NSF Proposal Award Process Timeline
Returned As Inappropriate/Withdrawn
NSF Proposal Generating Document
Minimum of 3 Reviews Required
NSF
Via DGA
Award

• Organization
• submits
• via
• FastLane

Proposal Processing Unit
Program Officer Analysis Recom.
Mail
Division Director Concur
Panel
NSF Program Officer
Both
Organization
Research Education Communities
Decline
Proposal Receipt at NSF
DD Concur
Award
90 Days
6 Months
30Days
Proposal Receipt to Division Director
Concurrence of Program Officer Recommendation
DGA Review Processing of Award
Proposal Preparation Time
6
Proposal Submission

• How?
• Via FastLane or Grants.gov
• Who?
• Universities and colleges
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations
• For-profit organizations
• State and local governments
• To whom?
• Categories of Funding Opportunities
• What?
• Basics of Proposal Types
• When?
• Target, deadline and window

7
Proposal Submission

• Program Description (or Announcement)
• Provides broad, general descriptions or programs
• Dear Colleague Letter
• Announces opportunities or special competitions
• Program Solicitation
• Encourages submission of proposals in specific
  program areas, additional criteria and reporting
  requirements, budgetary and eligibility limits,

8
Proposal Submission

• Letters of Intent
• Submit only if required by the program
• Helps assist NSF to gauge size and range of
  competition
• Evaluated internally
• Preliminary Proposal
• Submit only if required by the program
• Reduces proposal preparation effort, increases
  quality
• Invites submission of full proposals
• Full Proposal
• Is typical submission to NSF

9
Proposal Submission

• Target dates
• Dates after which proposal still accepted, but
  may miss a particular panel
• Deadline dates
• Dates after which proposal will not be accepted
• Submission window
• Designated periods of time during which proposals
  are accepted for Review
• Accepted any time after speaking with a Program
  Director
• EAGER
• RAPID

10
Proposal Submission

• Before submission
• Plan ahead!!
• Dont wait until the last minute
• Dont count on getting a time extension
• Submission
• Check before your submit
• Print out from FastLane to ensure pdf conversion
  is correct
• Work with your Sponsored Projects Office
• After submission
• Check Acknowledgment and FastLane proposal status
  page
• FastLane Proposal File Update module

11
Proposal Review Process

• Administrative Review
• Printed, checked, transferred to Division/Office
• Assigned to program, cluster, section
• Check for compliance (Review Criteria, Format,
  Appropriateness
• Merit Review
• Mail reviews
• Panel review
• Decisions - based on merit review
• Award or decline recommendation by Program
  Director
• Concurrence by Division Director
• Non-award notifications by Division/Office
• Award notifications by Division of Grants and
  Agreements

12
Proposal Review Process

• Administrative Review - Compliance Check
• Print problems, format, page limits
• Return without review
• FAILS TO ADDRESS BOTH MERIT REVIEW CRITERIA IN
  PROJECT SUMMARY
• Inappropriate for funding by NSF
• Received after announced proposal deadline date
• Full proposal submitted when preliminary proposal
  not invite
• Duplicate of or substantially similar to proposal
  under consideration
• Does not meet NSF proposal preparation
  requirements (GPG)
• Duplicates another proposal already funded

13
NSF Merit Review

• NSF invests in the best ideas from the most
  capable people, as determined by competitive
  merit review

14
NSF Merit Review

• Intellectual merit
• Creativity, originality and transformative
  potential
• Potential to advance knowledge
• Conceptualization and organization
• Qualifications of investigators
• Access to resources
• Broader impact
• Promotes teaching, training and learning
• Participation of underrepresented groups
• Enhancement of infrastructure
• Dissemination of results
• Benefits to society

15
NSF Merit Review

• Additional Considerations
• Integration of Research and Education
• Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs,
  Projects, and Activities
• Program Specific Review Criteria
• See Program Announcements and Solicitations

16
Merit Review

• Mail Reviews and Panel Reviews
• Suggestion of reviewers by PI
• Program Directors knowledge
• References
• Reviewer recommendation
• Google and web
• Reviewer conflict of interest
• Remove or limit influence (applicant institution
  or investigator)
• Preserve trust of community, Congress, and
  general public

17
Basis for Decisions Reviews

• Written Reviews
• Substance of review is more important than rating
• Program Director analyzes reviews (individual and
  summary)
• Information not available to the reviewer (e.g.,
  updates)
• Panel Advice - substance and priority

18
Basis for Decisions Reviews

• Innovation and creativity (potentially
  transformative)
• Breadth of research areas or education
• Priority areas
• Demographics and diversity
• Broadening participation
• Institutional impact
• Integration of research and education
• Goal A Balanced Portfolio

19
Proposal Preparation

• A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed,
  with a clear indication of methods for pursuing
  the idea, evaluating the findings, making them
  known to all who need to know, and indicating the
  broader impacts of the activity.

20
Step 1 Getting Started

• There is no substitute for a good idea!
• Find the right program early!
• Read the program description or solicitation
  carefully
• What to look for
• Goal, eligibility, special requirements,
  deadlines or target dates
• Where
• www.nsf.gov
• Program Directors (email, phone)
• MyNSF

21
Step 2 The ProposalThe Grant Proposal Guide

• Get it - Read it - Follow it
• Proposal preparation and submission
• Submission of collaborative proposals via
• Review criteria and process
• Return-Without-Review criteria
• Withdrawal, declination, and award processes
• Significant award administration procedures

22
Parts of a Proposal

• Cover sheet and certifications
• Project summary (intellectual merit broader
  impact)
• Table of contents
• Project description
• References cited
• Biographical sketches
• Budgets and justification
• Current and pending support (form)
• Facilities, equipment and other resources
• Special information/documentation
• Single copy documents

23
Project Summary

• This page is critical
• It influences which program or panel will review
  the proposal
• It must address both Merit Review Criteria
  (return-without-review)
• Intellectual Merit
• Describe problem and its importance
• State the overall goal and specific aims of
  proposed project
• Describe how the aims will be achieved
• Broader Impacts
• Educational outreach activities
• Infrastructure
• Dissemination of results
• Underrepresented groups
• Benefit to society

24
Project Description

• The key to a strong proposal
• Overall concept/rationale
• Hypothesis-driven, data-driven, or
  innovation-driven
• Execution
• Careful
• Thorough
• Appropriate

25
Project Description

• Objective(s) and expected significance
• Relation to present state of knowledge
• Methods and procedures
• Results from prior NSF support
• Relation to longer term goals and program goals
• Other information as specified in program
  announcement or solicitation

26
Budget

• Budgets should be
• Reasonable
• For personnel, equipment, travel, participant
  support, other direct costs (subaward,
  consultant, computer services, publications
  costs)
• Unless solicitation specifies otherwise, do not
• Include cost-sharing on Line M in budget
• Exceed cost-sharing level or amount specified in
  solicittion
• Justification

27
Current and Pending Support

• List everything
• Current, pending, and anticipated
• Be careful of overlap
• Perception of overlap could be detrimental in the
  review
• Dual submissions (see collaboratives)
• Only when they are allowed

28
Biographical Sketch

• Professional preparation
• Appointments
• Publications
• 5 closely related, 5 other significant
  publications
• Synergistic activities
• Collaborators other affiliations
• Collaborators (last 4 yrs) co-editors (last
  2-yrs)
• Graduate and postdoctoral advisors
• Thesis advisor and postgraduate-scholar sponsor

29
Advice Project Description

• Original, subtle, complicated ideas demand,
  clear, careful, lucid explanation
• Writing Thinking rewrite for clarity and
  impact
• Simplify and streamline
• Make sure you get your overall idea across
• Sweat the small stuff
• Spell check and proof-read
• Prepare clear photos, graphs, etc.
• Readable font and font-size

30
Advice Project Description

• The reviewer may not be an expert in your
  specific field
• Make it easy for reviewers to like your proposal
  - show youre committed, engaged
• Lost on page one is lost forever
• Figures and tables get your point across clearly
• You cannot predict what a reviewer will notice

31
Advice Be reasonable

• Be aware of the scope
• Too ambitious vs. Too narrow
• Be honest and up-front
• Address issues, dont try to hide them
• Acknowledge possible complications, problems, and
  have alternatives
• Explain what the literature provides and why the
  proposed project is needed

32
Why do some proposals fail?

• Absence of original ideas, hypotheses, or strong
  rationale for proposed project
• Errors
• Unclear or incomplete
• Faulty logic or design
• Less than rigorous presentation
• Unrealistic, sloppy or incomplete
• Resources and facilities not in place
• PI qualifications/expertise not evident
• Necessary collaborations not documented

33
(No Transcript)
34
One Cross-Cutting ProgramMajor Research
Instrumentation

• Goals
• Caveats
• Proposals
• Eligible Organizations
• What makes an MRI proposal fail
• What makes an MRI proposal succeed

35
NSF Proposal Writing Tips
36
What Makes a Proposal Competitive?

• Original ideas
• Succinct, focused project plan
• Realistic amount of work
• Sufficient detail provided
• Cost effective
• High impact
• Knowledge and experience of PIs
• Contribution to the field
• Rationale and evidence of potential effectiveness
• Likelihood the project will be sustained
• Solid evaluation plan

37
Tips for Success

• Consult the program solicitation and NSF Proposal
  Award Policies Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF
  09-1)
• Test drive FastLane
• Alert the Sponsored Research Office
• Follow page and font size limits
• Be aware of other projects and advances in the
  field
• Cite the literature
• Provide details
• Discuss prior results
• Include evaluation plan with timelines and
  benchmarks

38
Tips for Success

• Put yourself in the reviewers place
• Consider reviewers comments if resubmitting
  proposal
• Have someone else read the proposal
• Spell check grammar check
• Meet deadlines
• Follow NSF requirements for proposals involving
  Human Subjects
• Call or email NSF Program Officers

39
Dont Miss the Deadlines!!!
40
Not ready to submit a proposal this
year?Consider serving as a reviewer.
41

• QUESTIONS?
• Connie Kubo Della-Piana
• cdellapi_at_nsf.gov
• www.nsf.gov